John Kerry

[toms]

i didn't mean to get into an arguement on the merits of SUVs. My point is that an increase on tax on fuel in the US wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

Taxes have three main points.

1 - To raise revenue

2 - To balance levels out

3 - To control/limit usage

 

Taxes are frequently used to try to control use (alcholhol, cigarettes, gas, etc..), and this seems to be a perfectly valid use. It may not be a popular use, and it may not leave people immediately better off, but it may well be able to make a long term improvement in everyone's interest which can't be financially quantified.

 

Also, a limmit on resources often leads to a lot of innovation. Heck, they managed to get people to the moon with less computing power than a pocket calculator... this limit just forced them to be more creative with their resources. At the moment fuel in the US is so insanely cheap that it isn't really even a consideration. If fuel taxes went up to a reasonable level then everyone would be unhappy, but it would make fuel efficiency one of the most important points when buying a car, and pretty soon all the big manufactuers would be pouring billions into researching it and making much more effienct cars. Suddenly instead of adverts saying how BIG their new car is, they might be advertising how efficient it is.

 

If car travel was taxed to make it cost the same (in financial, medical, police, environmental terms) as other forms of transport then gas would need to increase by a factor of at least 10 to make it even close to even.

 

Right now the US produces 10s of times it's fair share of the world's polution, and claims to need to do so in order to keep it's competetiveness. Surely they will continue to do so until they need to change... at which point i expect they will pretty soon find ways to remain competetive, by being more efficient.

 

of course, gas prices aren't really the point of this thread, but if you look at editorialising like

And of course, Kerry's own record is one of an out-of-touch Senator who has done nothing but make it harder for consumers to get gasoline at low prices. Not once, but ten times, Kerry has voted for higher gas taxes. He even proposed a 50-cent increase in the gas tax! See the Kerry Gas Tax Calculator to see what Kerry's gas tax increase would mean to your family, and watch our ad, "Wacky," that tells the story of Kerry's consistent record of raising gas taxes.

It attempts to give the impression that kerry's purpose is to make life harder for consumers... which is hardly likely whether you like him or can't stand him.

Can't use the calculator though, as it doesn't seem to work in opera. (boo! bush loses my vote )

[ET Warrior]

What an insightfult first post ever

 

 

I like the way you use the term biased and facts in the same sentence though, because that creates an oxymoron, and I would have thought someone of your obvious intelligence wouldn't try that. A fact is a fact. You can throw a biased spin on the way you present it perhaps, but that doesn't change the truth that it's still fact.

 

And you're also being awfully petty here, saying that we'd vote for Hitler if he were running against Bush. Now, aside from him being obviously dead and all, and not American born, let's just assume that Adolf Hitler wanted to run for president, and run under the platform that he was going to kill all the jews. Do you HONESTLY believe that we are so blindly anti-bush we'd vote for him anyways? If you do, then your ignorance runs deep.

 

no matter how good a leader he is. And he is.

 

And just how good of a leader is Bush? What has he done that has been exemplary and fantastic? Aside from starting a war on terror, then abandoning it to start a war on a sovereign nation based on false pretenses, still proclaiming it as part of the war on terror of course.

 

The truth is that you don't know anything. This will become evident to you when Bush serves out his 8 years.

 

That doesn't mean that Skinwalker or any of the Kerry supporters don't know anything. It means that the majority of the people who voted don't know anything.

 

***Moderator note: I deleted the post above this one, which is quoted here. Reason for deletion was a request was made to Pimpzilla to change the signature. He did not. I make note here to explain the lack of context.

[align=right]-- SkinWalker[/align]

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Well, sorry to say this, but supporters of Kerry are not actually his supporters. They are actually supporters of an Anti-Bush campaign.

 

First, what's your evidence to support that hypothesis? Does that include all supporters of Kerry; most supporters of Kerry; some supporters of Kerry; or all supporters of Kerry; and how do you quantify that statement?

 

Second, perhaps there are those that see Bush as a true traitor to the American people: he lied to them about WMD in Iraq, Al-Qaeda ties in Iraq, Iraq's involvement in 9/11, sanctioned torture in Iraq, Afghanistan & Gitmo, and one or more insider trading incidents regarding Harken Oil; he's squandered the good name of America and the good will other nations had for us; he's put American troops in harm's way for years to come by violating and ignoring the Geneva convention and basic human rights and the rights to fair representation.

 

I'm not necessarily one of those people, but the argument could be made that Bush is a traitor. At the very least he's bad for the country.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

They don't know what's good for them and are blindly being led to believe that Kerry is a great candidate.

 

I see far less reason to see Kerry as a bad candidate than Bush. I challenge you do do more than fall lock-step into the Republican rhetoric and make your case rather than rest on immature cries of foul when patriotic Americans dare to use the American tradition of dissent and speak out against their government in favor of an alternative.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

I am also going to say that Skinwalker, you might make these other fools here think that you are intelligent because you throw biased facts and large vocabulary words from your pocket thesaurus at them.

 

Working backwards on your fallacious statements, I feel compelled to first inform you that my vocabulary comes from an education and not a thesaurus -perhaps the reason why I can see past the Bush-baloney; second, my intelligence notwithstanding, I'd warn you against regarding members as "fools" since this violates the rule against "directly insulting other members."

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

The truth is that you don't know anything.

 

Nothing about politics or nothing about anything? Show us where I'm wrong and I'll admit my mistake. Find one point that I've made, and if it's incorrect and you can demonstrate why, I'll own up to it. But I can tell you what I *do* know: you're another member hiding behind a second screenname.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

This will become evident to you when Bush serves out his 8 years.

 

Perhaps he will... time will tell. If he does, then it'll only prove that the American people are more gullible than I thought. But that being the decision of the American people, will be fine by me. I'll still dissent his policy and position since there is so much to find fault with, but if he wins fair and square that's fine. But if Bush is fired in November, would you agree to let me put a banner in the sig of your other screenname?

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

But, as with every other blind Kerry follower, you are so predictable. It was obvious even before the Democratic candidate was selected that you would support him.

 

Darn. I was that obvious?

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

You would support Hitler if he was the candidate...just so that you could exert your frustration and extreme hatred for Bush...no matter how good a leader he is. And he is.

 

Dude. Hitler is dead, so how can you say "he is" a good leader? Besides, I wouldn't vote for Hitler. He couldn't speak English.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

When Bush wins the election, you will all cry and whine and try to think up reasons why Kerry lost and why Bush cheated.

 

Some will. Just as the same will be true if the opposite occurs: Republican supporters will "cry and whine and try to think up reasons why Bush lost and why Kerry cheated." But it won't be me in either case. It wasn't in the last election and it won't be in this one.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

I am not anti-democrat, I am anti-anti-Bush and especially for you, anti-ignorance.

 

A retort including pots, kettles and the color black is tempting, but instead I simply challenge you to qualify and quantify your statements. You make it clear that you dislike those that are anti-Bush and the fact that I "hate" Bush (a term I've not used) and that I and others are angry, but you clearly appear far more angry than anyone who's posted a supporting comment about Kerry or a dissenting comment about Bush.

 

My first instinct was to delete the post since it is very probable that you used an alternate screenname rather than your regular one and because you are crossing the ad hominem line, which is agains LF rules, but I decided that if you are truly committed to your viewpoint, perhaps you'd like to debate it. I challenge you to do more than simply resort to immature accusations and go the extra step of saying why you think I'm wrong.

 

(Let's face it, your post was directed at me more than anyone).

 

My word in this post: as a moderator, I'm asking that you change your signature. It can be as anti-Kerry as you wish, but the homosexual overtones are offensive and probably against the rules. Indeed, multiple accounts is also against the rules, but as I haven't checked your IP address, it is unconfirmed. If, however, you don't change the sig in 24 hours, I'll have to delete your one post.

 

--------------------------

*** More than 24hrs passed. The sig wasn't changed. Moreover, evidence suggested that Pimpzilla is a duplicate account of another member who will remain unnamed. As a warning to all, please don't create multiple accounts. This is a rules violation and can lead to a ban.

[align=right]-- SkinWalker[/align]

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Dude. Hitler is dead, so how can you say "he is" a good leader? Besides, I wouldn't vote for Hitler. He couldn't speak English.

 

OT. That may be one of the funniest things I've ever read at LF. Ever. Definately the funniest thing I've read in the senate. Except maybe the guy saying people choose to be raped, thus totally changing the entire definition of rape.

[Captain Wilson]

i would like to say that,living in the UK, the U.S. leadership does not bother or effect me, but unfortantly, as all U.S. decisons will, it does. I must say though that this thread has opened my eyes that bit wider, as here, we recive no, or little word on any polical oppistion to Bush, But the genral view of the UK (This may, of course be argued by other UK citezens(SP?)) is negtive toward Bush. Kerry is the only oppent i have heard of in the U.S. Political race (Bar Bush). I would feel better if someone eles did beat Bush though (would feel even better if someone eles beat tony blair, which they undoubtably will)

 

Oh yes, plese excuse my spelling, it is not my strongest point

[toms]

i'm quite happy to admit that i am anti-bush, not pro kerry.

 

Again, i'm from outside the US, so we don't get to hear a lot about the policies of the opposition, but i'll be quite frank and say that i would rather the US elected practically anybody than bush.

 

Whether bush is good for the american people is debatable (at least those that aren't rich enough for him to notice) but the fact that he is bad for the world is undeniable. Him maybe messing up america might not have too big an effect on the rest of us, but the way he is unilaterally messing up the rest of the world is going to affect all of us a lot more than him and his mates, and is going to take decades to sort out if we finally get rid of him.

 

Kerry seems like an average politician... not deserving of that much respect, but still a better bet than someone who isn't even really good enough to be considered a politician, just a rich daddy's boy.

 

But to be fair, all camaigning is always negative, everyone is much happier voting against stuff than coming up with better ideas, so i think i am at least anti-bush for good reason, rather than being anti-bush or anti-kerry just because of political affiliations...

[SkinWalker]

Moderator Note: I deleted pimpzilla again for failing to change/modify his signature. I don't have access to sigs when editing the post, so deletion was the only way to get rid of it.

 

Pimpzilla: I will verify that your account is, indeed, unique. If so, please continue to post here but with a less offensive signature. I'm speaking of the sexual comments/verbage... you can be as critical of whatever political figures you choose so long as this and insults to forum members are avoided.

 

Post again with this signature, and I will request a ban.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

To everyone else: below the dashed line is the entire content of pimpzilla's post sans the signature.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Pimpzilla on 06-29-2004 08:00 PM:

*** More than 24hrs passed. The sig wasn't changed. Moreover, evidence suggested that Pimpzilla is a

duplicate account of another member who will remain unnamed. As a warning to all, please don't create

multiple accounts. This is a rules violation and can lead to a ban.

-- SkinWalker

I would like for you to tell me what evidence suggests that I am a duplicate account. If you call your "woman's intuition"

evidence then you are unjustified in your claims.

Indeed, multiple accounts is also against the rules, but as I haven't checked your IP address, it is unconfirmed.

If, however, you don't change the sig in 24 hours, I'll have to delete your one post.

You said it yourself, unconfirmed.

Dude. Hitler is dead, so how can you say "he is" a good leader? Besides, I wouldn't vote for Hitler. He couldn't speak English.

First of all, if you read carefully, I put "if he was", suggesting that I understand he is not alive. Not very bright are you?

Try educating yourself in orthography and english interpretation skills.

my vocabulary comes from an education

Yeah, I'm going to believe that.

Also, let me ask you why you decided to delete my post. And why you did not quote me when I said you used "Biased

sources" to confirm your accusations. I can easily do the same.

I see far less reason to see Kerry as a bad candidate than Bush

Well, Bush being a bad candidate is your opinion. Second, the reason you see far less reason to see Kerry as a bad

candidate is because he hasn't been given the opportunity to screw up. This could be accomplished by letting him become

our next president. But that won't happen.

 

Since you want some arguments, here they are:

 

Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 p.m. EDT

How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks

A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA.

"Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died

in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only

thing you don't have is the when."

Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo.

And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles.

"Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the

World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of

9/11.

 

How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by

President Clinton, not Bush.

 

And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives.

 

Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he

could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened.

 

* Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin

Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as

FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

 

* Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security

measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility

of hijackings.

 

* In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would

have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and

other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice.

 

* Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have

had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won.

 

* In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well.

 

Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the

nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars.

 

But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power.

 

March 23, 2004

Orlando, FL -- After campaign staffers for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry destroyed their signs saying their

abortions hurt them, Rebecca Porter and her friend Cindy decided to try their luck with the signs at a rally for President

George W. Bush. The difference was amazing.

 

In an exclusive LifeNews.com story earlier this month, Porter said Kerry was "shocked and surprised" to see her sign, which

read "My Abortion Hurt Me." A Kerry campaign staffer tore it to shreds moments later saying, "You can't have that sign

here."

 

The Kerry campaign has refused to comment on the matter.

But, Rebecca and Cindy felt as though a door had been opened for them when they found themselves with VIP passes a

day before a recent Bush event in Orlando.

 

On the back of their signs, they taped the message "Thank you President Bush for being Pro-Life." When they arrived at

the Bush rally, homemade signs were not allowed inside the event, so they stashed them away to use afterwards.

 

The women later found themselves about 10 feet away from the president, but were unable to show him their signs.

 

After the event, the women grabbed their signs and held them in front of a group of hundreds of people waiting to board

busses to take them to nearby parking lots. The positive response was overwhelming.

 

"After about two minutes a young man came close enough to read the signs and he asked me if I was the woman who took her sign to Kerry's rally," Porter told LifeNews.com. "I was so surprised!"

The women also encountered a pregnant woman and asked her to take their picture.

 

"She was waiting for her friends and stood by watching us for over five minutes," Porter says. "Cindy shared with her a

copy of the LifeNews.com article and told her about Operation Outcry: Silent No More," a group that helps women hurt by

abortion share their stories.

 

The woman had had an abortion and discussed her negative abortion experience with Cindy.

 

Those attending the Bush event overwhelmed Rebecca and Cindy with their positive response to the signs.

 

"There were no negative remarks," Porter explained. "We must have had over 25 thumbs ups and many came and shook

our hands and said 'God bless you for your courage. But there were also the ones with pain in their eyes that would look

away, the ones who have felt the same pain of abortion that we have."

 

The women also received invitations from students with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at the University of Florida to

speak at their campus.

 

Porter tells LifeNews.com that event was a stark contrast to the Kerry rally.

 

"It was wonderful to be there. The rally was like a whole different world from Kerry's," Porter explained.

 

Both articles were taken from http://www.lifenews.com

 

Oh and I would just like to say that if you, or any other member takes time to read some articles on that site, you will see that you can learn a lot about certain other issues that are discussed in the Senate Chambers...abortion being one of the dominant ones.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

You said it yourself, unconfirmed [regarding the duplicate accounts].

 

Only "unconfirmed" as of the date/time of the post that I originally made. Confirmation came two days later.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

First of all, if you read carefully, I put "if he was", suggesting that I understand he is not alive. Not very bright are you?

Try educating yourself in orthography and english interpretation skills.

 

Heh... You failed to see the joke I had at your expense? No, I think you noticed. But to answer your question, no, I'm not very bright at all. Sorry. However, in the interest of orthography and English interpretation, let's look close at the quote:

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla [align=center]

You would support Hitler if he was the candidate...just so that you could exert your frustration and extreme hatred for Bush...no matter how good a leader he is. And he is.[/align]

 

Note the use of the ellipsis before "just" and after "Bush." The ellipsis is a punctuation character used to denote an omission from a quote. Your double use of the ellipsis implied that the text following the first and preceding the second should be omitted from the theme of the sentance or that it is a sidebar statement. Without this statement, the sentence would read: "You would support Hitler if he was the candidate no matter how good a leader he is. And he is."

 

The misuse of the ellipsis is common; most people use it in place of a comma. I do it as well, though I try to catch myself... but I was able to infer that you weren't suggesting Hitler "is" a good leader. I did, however, take advantage of your mistake and make a joke. As I said, I'm not very bright, so I try to get them where I can.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

let me ask you why you decided to delete my post.

 

I thought I was clear. I requested that you remove the sexual wording and insult to forum members from your signature within 24 hours. After 48, I deleted the post as I said I would, since I don't have the ability to change the sig in edit. In addition, your account appears to be a duplicate based on IP cross reference done by an administrator.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

And why you did not quote me when I said you used "Biased sources" to confirm your accusations. I can easily do the same.

 

Indeed, I used biased sources (can you think of any that are without bias?). But does their bias imply falsification? I challenge you to point out where I was wrong in my "accusations." If I can't counter-refute, I'll admit I was wrong.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Well, Bush being a bad candidate is your opinion.

 

But one that I've attempted (successfully, as far as I can tell) to support with fact(s). I'd also challenge you to list Bush's top 10 accomplishments.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Second, the reason you see far less reason to see Kerry as a bad candidate is because he hasn't been given the opportunity to screw up.

 

Kerry has been on Capitol Hill since 1984 (20 years) and was Lt. Governor of Mass. under Dukakis for the two years prior to that. I'd say he's had plenty of time to screw up. But are you implying that Bush has screwed up in his short tenure?

 

This could be accomplished by letting him become our next president. But that won't happen.

 

Why won't it happen?

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of Bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America

 

That's quite a fallacious statement that the original author makes. Why not just detain the Middle-Eastern foreign nationals enrolled in flight schools? The FBI had them under surveillance, after all.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings.

 

Simply screening and giving more attention to the one-way ticket holders would have netted them.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice.

 

Or use warnings of increased threat as we did with terror threats in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. Many incidents of terrorism were thwarted by this practice.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well.

 

I won't argue that. But hard-line diplomacy should have been used to pressure the countries as much as possible. But the failure to effectively deal with Bin Laden is shared by the G.H. Bush and Clinton Presidencies as well. I will, however, state that G.W. Bush's failure is different in that he could have used the military, intelligence, and political resources that were dumped on Iraq to get Bin Laden.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars.

 

And that is the original author's own opinion, lacking any substantial or empirical support and based largely on fallacious arguments. It remains a possibility, but nothing more. The opposite is equally as possible.

 

Originally posted by Pimpzilla

Both articles were taken from http://www.lifenews.com

 

Oh and I would just like to say that if you, or any other member takes time to read some articles on that site, you will see that you can learn a lot about certain other issues that are discussed in the Senate Chambers...abortion being one of the dominant ones.

 

It was nothing but anti-abortion propaganda! I don't subscribe to either of the false dichotomies created by the abortion debate. I disagree with both sides of the argument that it is a black and white issue and I believe that taking only a pro or only a con stand on the subject is among the more ignorant things that people do. Moreover, this is a subject that is best left out of political campaigns since public opinion is largely split on the subject. Neither the republican nor the democratic sides can afford to alienate a full half of their voter base. I'm not surprised that Bush wouldn't allow the kook to show her sign near him either. It's bad politics.

 

Pimpzilla: I really don't care if you use multiple accounts. It's against the rules of LF, so I give the warning. If, in fact, it was a coincidence that your IP matched another member on the same day (a very improbable event), that's fine. I'm happy to assume that. I welcome your argument and hardline approach if you want to debate politics here, but I won't abide by obvious rules violations of insults to forum members or the use of profanity or x-rated suggestions in a signature or elsewhere in a post.

 

If you want to stay, clean it up. I can tolerate offensive comments and remarks directed toward me and won't offer much in the way of warning as long as they don't include other forum members or inlcude the type of language not suited for LucasForums.

[ShadowTemplar]

Throne of Earth! Sounds like you had your work cut out for you, Skin. Now, for some of the recent issues on these pages:

 

- Gas prices: If you were to pay for the actual, socio-economic and environmental cost of gas, you'd have to pay about ten times as much as you (US) do now.

 

- Taxes: I come from a country where people pay 40-60% income tax, plus 25% sales tax, making for a total tax on the part of your income that goes into consumer goods about 50-70% And guess what? We pretty much avoided the last two major international economic crises (Asian Tiger collapse and 9/11 backlash). It can be done. And it can be done profitably. In fact, I happen to think that it's the best way to run an economy.

[DiRtY $oUtH™]

Well, here are some more things that you should consider when asking yourself whether or not Kerry is a good candidate for the presidency...Flip Flop Central...

 

Kerry Says He Believes "Life Does Begin At Conception." "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." (Jonathan Finer, "Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts At Conception," The Washington Post, 7/5/04)

 

In Dubuque, Iowa, a community known for its strong Catholic and pro-life history, John Kerry stated that he believes that life begins at conception. However, John Kerry's voting record over the years and his public statements clearly show that he is one of the abortion-on-demand crowd's biggest supporters.

 

In an attempt to blur the issue and win political points, John Kerry is trying to appeal to pro-lifers and hope they ignore his voting record and his public statements. If someone is willing to acknowledge that life begins at conception and does nothing to protect that life, it demonstrates a startling lack of conviction and politics at its worst.

 

 

John Kerry panders to conservative voters on the issue of life

 

Kerry Says He Will Provide Abortion Rights Supporters "Clearest Possible Choice" In Kerry/Bush Contest. "And if elected president, I will nominate judges who will seek to expand [abortion] rights and opportunities--not reduce them. In this area, anyone who values a woman's right to choose in particular or constitutional privacy rights in general will have the clearest possible choice between me and President Bush in 2004." (Sen. John Kerry, A Call To Service, 2003, p. 182)

 

Kerry Says He's Only Presidential Candidate "Who Hasn't Played Games" With Abortion Issue. "I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around,' said Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that right." (Mike Glover, "Kerry Says No Games' On Abortion," The Associated Press, 1/26/04)

 

 

What others say about John Kerry

 

Kerry Is First Presidential Candidate To Ever Be Endorsed By Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

(Laurie Goodstein, "Vatican Cardinal Signals Backing For Sanctions On Kerry," The New York Times, 4/24/04)

 

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 2003 Votes From Planned Parenthood. (Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. Website, <http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/person-vote.html?person_id=2040>, Accessed 1/24/04)

 

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 Votes From NARAL. (NARAL, Congressional Votes On Abortion, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993)

 

 

John Kerry's Voting Record in the United States Senate

 

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.

 

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In United States.

 

Kerry Voted Against Unborn Victims of Violence Act - "Laci and Connor Peterson's Law"

 

Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry's Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003. Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, "How They Measured Up," http://nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

[SkinWalker]

It looks to me like you're saying that Kerry is a politician who doesn't let his personal beliefs and convictions overly bias his ability to listen to his constituency.

 

In other words, the kind of leader this country needs.

 

Thanks for the information, DS.

[toms]

was listening to a debate on this very subject last night, and i don't really see what point you are making DS.

 

The belief that life begins at conception isn't incompatible with believing that abortion should be available in certain, or even many situations. Only those that are dogmatic enough in their beliefs to believe a highly complex situation is black and white would think otherwise. And that would definately not be the sort of person you would want as a leader...

 

Skin is right though, it is the job of a politician to do what is best for , and to represent his people... not to always do what HE/SHE wants. This might mean making compromises, voting against your personal feeling or even making deals and voting against something you believe in if it will help with something else.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Note the use of the ellipsis before "just" and after "Bush." The ellipsis is a punctuation character used to denote an omission from a quote. Your double use of the ellipsis implied that the text following the first and preceding the second should be omitted from the theme of the sentance or that it is a sidebar statement. Without this statement, the sentence would read: "You would support Hitler if he was the candidate no matter how good a leader he is. And he is."

 

I thought that, with the use of the ellipsis, it just means that there's something being omitted from that quote, so the quote "You would support Hitler if he was the candidate...just so that you could exert your frustration and extreme hatred for Bush...no matter how good a leader he is. And he is." would transform to "You would support Hitler if he was the candidate [insert blah blah blah] just so that you could exert your frustration and extreme hatred for Bush [insert more blah blah blah] no matter how good a leader he is. And he is." I really haven't read any rules about double ellipses.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I thought that, with the use of the ellipsis, it just means that there's something being omitted from that quote,[...] I really haven't read any rules about double ellipses.

 

Which is all true: the ellipsis is typically used once to indicate ommission within a quote. Using brackets around the ellipsis as I did above clarifies who did the ommission (me in this case). Incidently, brackets around a word or words within a quote indicates an inclusion by the person quoting.

 

Often, however, ellipses are used incorrectly to create a pause or breakup a sentance. This is colloquial usage and not formal, but when it occurs as it did in the post where Hitler was invoked, the usage can be inferred as parenthetical or comma-like: a compound sentance interrupted by a third phrase.

 

That is, if any of this really matters to the debate.

[Kurgan]

I know this is the John Kerry thread, but a quick note on public transportation.

 

When I was in college the bus ride had its benefits.

 

1) I didn't need to be fully awake, in fact I could take a quick nap if I wanted to.

 

2) I could catch up on homework or read a book.

 

3) I learned my way around the city without having to go through the frustration of getting lost or wasting gas.

 

So there are definately pluses to public transporation other than cutting pollution and saving fuel.

 

Freedom is good, but some people are just being more greedy than others. When we have to constantly fight wars and support wars to keep the gas flowing, something needs to change. Yes, our reliance on the fuel and refusal to change is the problem. It doesn't help when people flaunt it as if there's no end in sight to the supply though... sort of like people wasting water in the desert.

[toms]

there is a similar debate in our office at the moment. The thing is that, on the whole, it is just more convienient to use cars... and people aren't willing to give up that convience once they get used to it. Many people could do without cars 90% of the time, but truely do need them for the other 10%. But once they have a car and are paying for it they will use it for the other 90% as well.

 

The thing is, the whole western "decadent" wasteful economy that we all love so much will only work as long as there is another half of the world working hard with no benefits to support it. Unfortunately they are starting to see how we live and want to live the same... so once the whole of india drives SUVs, works 37hr weeks with benefits and gets paid equally we amy find that we have a few problems (goods costing a fortune and unbreathable air for starters...)

 

anyway, back to the bush/kerry bashing...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™

Well, here are some more things that you should consider when asking yourself whether or not Kerry is a good candidate for the presidency...Flip Flop Central...

 

Flip-flop? I'll show you flip-flop. Before the Iraq war, Dubya was over the moon about how important Iraq's WMD were (the WMD that he knew were there). All of a sudden, he has made a complete turnaround, and now cites the brutality of Hussein's regime as the prime reason to go to war... Is he flip-flopping or just making excuses? And which is worse?

 

Don't throw apples when you're rotten at the core.

 

In Dubuque, Iowa, a community known for its strong Catholic and pro-life history, John Kerry stated that he believes that life begins at conception. However, John Kerry's voting record over the years and his public statements clearly show that he is one of the abortion-on-demand crowd's biggest supporters.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can believe that an action is wrong, yet still believe that it is important that people have a choice in the matter. For example, I find it lacking in wrong that 16-yrs old kids go out and get drunk every weekend, but I am not in favor of a youth curfew, because I consider that an overkill.

 

And get rid of the attitude. You are making me sick.

 

In an attempt to blur the issue and win political points, John Kerry is trying to appeal to pro-lifers and hope they ignore his voting record and his public statements. If someone is willing to acknowledge that life begins at conception and does nothing to protect that life, it demonstrates a startling lack of conviction and politics at its worst.

 

If people are stupid enough to put someone in a box with sharp corners because of a single statement, they deserve to be cheated.

 

Kerry Is First Presidential Candidate To Ever Be Endorsed By Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

 

Well, congratulations, Mr. Kerry

 

"Vatican Cardinal Signals Backing For Sanctions On Kerry," The New York Times, 4/24/04)

 

Congratulations again, Mr. Kerry.

 

John Kerry's Voting Record in the United States Senate

 

... is useless unless you provide specific context in each case. Laws are usually part of a package, and if (the rest of) the package contained fanatical fascist bull****, then voting "no" is the only respectable thing to do.

 

Kerry Voted Against Unborn Victims of Violence Act - "Laci and Connor Peterson's Law"

 

Details, please.

 

Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry's Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003. Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, "How They Measured Up," http://nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

[/b]

 

Another "Left-of-the-left" argument. Well, dubya is a "right-of-the-right" president. So, obviously, using the 'extremist' argument against Kerry is fallacious, especially since Kerry appointed a dep. prez. who was closer to the average than dubya's ditto.

[toms]

before 9/11 bush said iraq wasn't a threat, was contained, didn't have a significant arms programme. After 9/11 it suddenly WAS a threat, wasn't contained and DID have a significant arms programme. Now it MAY have been a threat, DIDN'T have a significant arms programme (not that it is apparently important right now) but was a threat to it's own people. Welcome to flip flop city

 

Of course, bush doesn't exactly have a long record of votes, as he had no real political career until the last of his businesses failed and his parents and their mates decided it was too expensive to keep buying him new ones so they might as well buy him some political power and get something out of him.

[MennoniteHobbit]

I just had to do this!

 

http://www.techbaseforums.com/files/images/shoveit.jpg

[toms]

was it some deep seated compulsion?

Not that it really matters anyway, as i don't get it at all...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the USA, where to question authority is unamerican and to question the leadership is unpatriotic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MennoniteHobbit]

I don't get it Skin... you edited my post? Or tried to? It looks in the same condition as I was posted. I'm guessing you tried to edit my signature about "Welcome to the US." If you were all I can say is even if I posted that I sort of have a right to say that, don't I? Just wondering, I mean no disrespect...

 

And anyways in that pic I omitted some of her quote about being civilized.

 

Welcome to the USA, where to question authority is unamerican and to question the leadership is unpatriotic.

 

Actually, no one ever said questioning authority is un-American. What is un-American though is going with the anybody-but-Bush theme, even thinking of letting the 9/11 commission do something about Iraq, etc. What is unpatriotic is saying "hey let's unseat this f***er President for no good reason!"

 

And as for the quote, you probably know already, but Heinz Kerry said all about that un-American, un-Pennsylvanian etc. traits. You can see her quote in my image. But when a Tribune reporter asked "what do you mean by un-American" Heinz Kerry responded with "I never said that (un-American). Why are you putting words in my mouth? ... Now shove it!"

[ET Warrior]

According to our president we're unpatriotic if we question authority. Remember "If you're not with us you're against us" ?

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

According to our president we're unpatriotic if we question authority. Remember "If you're not with us you're against us" ?

 

"If you're not with us [on the war on terror]" you're against us trying to prevent attacks, prevent/stop terrorism, and against our good cause. And that in itself is already un-patriotic. So being dubbed un-patriotic because of that reason isn't as blatant as you imply actually, if you read more of the context. Questioning authority to that extent (that can be related to not wanting to prevent further attacks and more) is un-patriotic.

[ET Warrior]

I feel like quoting Lewis Black, because he is very right on this point...

 

"when are we going to learn, if you're against a war...it doesn't mean you are FOR the other SIDE..."

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

I don't get it Skin... you edited my post? Or tried to? It looks in the same condition as I was posted. I'm guessing you tried to edit my signature about "Welcome to the US." If you were all I can say is even if I posted that I sort of have a right to say that, don't I? Just wondering, I mean no disrespect...

he was fixing your picture link, it was broken. you're kinda mistrusting aren't you? And I get called a commie pinko faggot when I question the government pretty much all the time.... maybe it's just texans. *shrugs*

 

Also if Bush meant against preventing attacks means you're unpatriotic, I think he even would've said that.... or else he's just a bad public speaker, and a bad president, because in that position of power you have to leave very little room for misunderstanding or else you have a major war on your hands, and don't give me that he's just human thing, as a president he should be aware that any slip up could cause a world wide war, and therefore should be practicing his speeches a lot until he gets it atleast 99.9% accurate without any chance for misunderstandings, or atleast re-explain his speech to correct the misunderstanding. you learn these kinds of things in middle school speech class.